Latest Version of Malwarebytes

[Layback Bear]

Every anti virus programs have their naysayers.

If Norton works for you and your happy, go for it.

Jack

 

[kado897]

Every anti virus programs have their naysayers.

If Norton works for you and your happy, go for it.

Jack

I have Norton running quite happily alongside MB3. They don't seem to interfere with each other.

 

[jadinolf]

Every anti virus programs have their naysayers.

If Norton works for you and your happy, go for it.

Jack

I have Norton running quite happily alongside MB3. They don't seem to interfere with each other.

ESET NOD32 seems to be fine with latest version of Malwarebytes.

 

[Layback Bear]

That is exactly what my point was.
Different things work for different people and systems.

With a little time the bugs will be worked out.
My faith comes from the fact that Malwarebytes has always worked the bug out and it doesn't take long.

Jack

 

[marsmimar]

That is exactly what my point was.
Different things work for different people and systems.

With a little time the bugs will be worked out.
My faith comes from the fact that Malwarebytes has always worked the bug out and it doesn't take long.

Jack

I sincerely hope your optimism comes true, Jack. Unfortunately, I recall a time when Norton/Symantec was the go-to company for antivirus programs. Then they decided to revamp everything and they became a bloated, nearly unusable product for many people. It took them about 3 years to regain the trust they once had. I hope Malwarebytes doesn't go down the same path.

 

[jadinolf]

This is the first time that I recall Malwarebytes turning out such a poor product.
I have had licenses since 2008 and although it works on 2 of my computers- that's about it.
3 more to go and I am afraid to go further.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
2.0.... was no prize winner when it was released either

 

[jadinolf]

Hi,
2.0.... was no prize winner when it was released either

I just don't remember.

 

[Barman58]

It's not the issues with the actual V3 product that worry me, that's fixable I believe, ( the product was not ready for prime time so should not have been released). what worries me is the direction the company seems to be taking - the fast track to Bloat central, they're buying up other products and combining products into the flagship product. As with other All in one type products they tend to become a "jack of all trades, Master of none" product, they take more resources and if there is one part with an issue the whole product is tainted.

I also suspect that the more aggressive stance with PUPs is a lot to do with sales "Sound Bytes" like the one already reported where they state the huge number of deletions of PUPs achieved, if a lot of them are false positives what value is the data.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Hi,
2.0.... was no prize winner when it was released either

Hi,
2.0.... was no prize winner when it was released either

I just don't remember.

Oh, it was a doozy when 2.0 first came out. I waited a long time before I upgraded to make sure the worst bugs were worked out.

 

[MoxieMomma]

Hi,
2.0.... was no prize winner when it was released either

I just don't remember.

As with any new major version, MBAM2 had its share of performance, stability and compatibility issues.
That is nothing new. Most of them were fixed; some of them never were.
I expect that most of the performance and stability issues for 3.0 will be fixed eventually, as well.
I am less optimistic about compatibility problems, now that Malwarebytes 3.0 is being touted in a new light. I hope that REAL side-by-side compatibility will not be a problem for those of us who wish to continue with a true, layered security strategy.

The main difference with the launch of MBAM2 vs. the launch of Malwarebytes 3.0 hinges on the fact that it was not asserted at any time that MBAM2 was sufficient as sole protection and an "AV replacement".
It was accurately marketed as a complementary program specializing in certain types of non-viral malware not well-covered by a standard AV. It was (and remains) a collaborative product to accompany a fully-flagged AV.

By contrast, we are told that Malwarebytes 3.0 surpasses”, “makes obsolete”, “replaces” and is “more proficient” than a standard AV, with -- thus far -- no published data to support the claims.
While Malwarebytes 3.0 does includes new protection against exploits and ransomware, these are not unique to Malwarebytes 3.0. Many (most?) of the better 3rd-party AVs also provide these features, as well as others that Malwarebytes 3.0 does not.

I have no doubt that the Malwarebytes folks will work hard to fix performance and stability issues. Until we see published data from outside testing, however, it remains to be seen whether the enthusiastic claims of Malwarebytes 3.0 as sole protection and "AV Replacement" will hold up.
And if the claims are borne out, will Malwarebytes 3.0 also fulfill the promise of remaining compatible in the real world, not just on paper, with major 3rd-party AVs?
Those issues constitute the crux of what's new and different about Malwarebytes 3.0.

MM

 

[MoxieMomma]

It's not the issues with the actual V3 product that worry me, that's fixable I believe, ( the product was not ready for prime time so should not have been released). what worries me is the direction the company seems to be taking - the fast track to Bloat central, they're buying up other products and combining products into the flagship product. As with other All in one type products they tend to become a "jack of all trades, Master of none" product, they take more resources and if there is one part with an issue the whole product is tainted.

I also suspect that the more aggressive stance with PUPs is a lot to do with sales "Sound Bytes" like the one already reported where they state the huge number of deletions of PUPs achieved, if a lot of them are false positives what value is the data.

I agree here, as well.
They have now added anti-exploit and anti-ransomware.
Anti-adware and anti-junkware will likely be next, if recent acquisitions are any indication.
This does appear to be a case of mission-drift, if not "bloat".

Whether one program can do (almost) everything and do it all WELL (alone or side-by-side with a real AV) remains to be seen.
And we must remember that -- at least for now -- Malwarebytes 3.0 protection still contains important, publicly-stated limitations and shortcomings.

Time will tell. If Malwarebytes 3.0 performs well in independent, outside testing and in the real world, I will be more than happy to eat my hat.


MM

 

[mjf]

Many products including Norton claim to have protection against various malware including ransomware. At least they say the obvious and that is there is no 100% protection guarantee.
Regular system images (and keep a number of them over quite a period of time) and other data backups are the ultimate protection. This takes time and a disciplined approach.

 

[MoxieMomma]

Many products including Norton claim to have protection against various malware including ransomware. At least they say the obvious and that is there is no 100% protection guarantee.
Regular system images (and keep a number of them over quite a period of time) and other data backups are the ultimate protection. This takes time and a disciplined approach.

True, so true.
If only average computer users paid as much attention to that sort of excellent advice as to the powerful ads, those users (and their data) would be a lot safer.
No security software can or will protect 100% of computers from 100% of malware 100% of the time.
And perhaps Malwarebytes 3.0 is as good as the company say it is.

And no one begrudges a security software company's need to market their products, to produce an ROI and to create a favorable bottom-line for their investors. They are not a charity.

The major AVs, however, enjoy a long record of participation in AV comparatives and other outside testing.
Past, present and future Malwarebytes customers deserve at least that level of evidence to support the new marketing claims.
Users would then be in a better position to make an informed decision about their own computer security software purchases.

Cheers,
MM

 

[A Guy]

V3 is running happily alongside real time Avast, SuperAntispyware Pro, Winpatrol, Zemana Antilogger, EMET. Have also scanned with Emsisoft, again no issues. I'm glad I have the right combo. A Guy

 

[MoxieMomma]

V3 is running happily alongside real time Avast, SuperAntispyware Pro, Winpatrol, Zemana Antilogger, EMET. Have also scanned with Emsisoft, again no issues. I'm glad I have the right combo. A Guy

It does sound as if you are lucky.

Just curious, did you make any changes to the default settings in Avast, Malwarebytes and/or EMET?
Did you set mutual exclusions between Avast and Malwarebytes 3.0?

Reason for asking: there are reports of compatibility problems with Avast and Malwarebytes 3.0 (here and here), and EMET was never compatible with MBAE & running both was never supported (I presume that is still the case for the anti-exploit component of Malwarebytes 3.0).

Thanks,
MM

 

[Layback Bear]

From what I have read on this forum and other places it seem to me the new release is more of a beta version and not ready for prime time.

Jack

 

[kado897]

From what I have read on this forum and other places it seem to me the new release is more of a beta version and not ready for prime time.

Jack

That's why they haven't released if though the automatic update yet.

 

[DavidE]

I installed MB3 Premium on a Win 10 OS i don't use much to test drive it.
Some programs are so slow (unusable) if Exploit Protection is turned on.
I can turn off the Exploit Protection for those programs, and they work fine.

Malwarebytes is a private company.
I wonder if all the changes they made aren't to prep it for a public offering.

 

[MoxieMomma]

Yes, lots of compatibility issues for lots of folks, even with just browsers and MSE/WD.
Too many folks are being asked to disable all or part of their real AV and/or parts of Malwarebytes 3.0.
As previously reported, one staffer even uninstalled MSE from her own Win7 laptop because of incompatibility.
That's hardly the side-by-side compatibility that has been promised so many times in recent weeks.

Re: Win10, it was just recently suggested that users on the Insider builds disable the AE component of Malwarebytes 3.0 and use the standalone beta version of MBAE until a fix is released in "towards the end of January":

Windows 10 Insider Preview and Compatibility Assistant - Malwarebytes 3.0 - Malwarebytes Forums

Re: the wisdom of running Malwarebytes 3.0 as SOLE protection....
In addition to the links already provided in earlier posts in this thread and at our sister forum, this post presents a compelling counter-argument against that approach.
More conversation here, as well.

Three themes remain:

• Performance & stability
• Compatibility
• Lack of data to support claims of being sufficient for sole protection

Yes, one does wonder about what/how/why/when of recent events.
It likely does not involve s3x.
So, one must presume it probably has something to do with $$?


Cheers,
MM